It's no secret that the Clinton defense squads play hardball with their political opponents. But at least they get publicized. Less well attended to is the Administration's practice of trying to smother or smear internal government whistleblowers critical of its policies. The practice extends from lower-level bureaucrats who find themselves investigated or demoted all the way up to high officials.
Even officials who stay inside the chain of command suffer reprisals. Everyone now knows about the Chinese espionage at the Los Alamos nuclear lab. Not nearly so widely known is that Notra Trulock, the Energy Department investigator who uncovered the espionage, says he was ordered not to tell Congress of his findings. Colleagues say he was also harassed and intimidated by superiors.
Meanwhile, FBI officials tell us of agents who tried to warn the White House that some of the President's Arkansas buddies were engaged in shady business deals in China, then saw their careers derailed or sidelined.
Of course, the most famous whistleblower of the Clinton era may be Jean Lewis, the investigator for the Resolution Trust Corp. who told Congress there was "a concerted effort to obstruct, hamper and manipulate" her probe of Madison Savings, the Arkansas S&L with links to the Clinton family. Her superiors removed her from the probe and placed her on administrative leave. A letter was pulled from her computer and leaked to smear her motives. And of course there are the Privacy Act violations against Kathleen Willey and Linda Tripp, both government employees.
But most other retaliations against whistleblowers have been more conventional. Senate Finance Chairman William Roth claims that several IRS employees who testified about abuses before his committee suffered reprisals.
The Environmental Protection Agency has disciplined employees who speak out against its use of junk science. In 1995, the U.S. Appeals Court for the District of Columbia struck down an EPA edict that allowed employees to accept reimbursement from private groups to give speeches only if they were "toeing the agency line." Last year, an administrative law judge ordered the EPA to pay one of its scientists, David Lewis, more than $100,000 after it falsely accused him of ethics violations over articles he had written criticizing the agency. This past September, a second judge found that the EPA had discriminated against him in denying him a promotion.
Some harassment of whistleblowers is clearly done to avoid political embarrassment for the Administration. In 1996, the Immigration and Naturalization Service allowed Vice President Gore's office to pressure it into allowing 180,000 immigrants to become citizens before that year's election without having their criminal records checked. Some 11,000 of them had felony arrest records.
Much of this could have been avoided if the Administration had heeded warnings from Neil Jacobs, an assistant director in the INS's Dallas office. Subpoenaed to testify before Congress, he reported in late 1996 that not one out of 10,000 people who became citizens in the Dallas area were referred to his office for a review of their criminal records.
After his testimony, the INS tried to fire him for denying merit raises for three Hispanic agents and instead giving them $1,000 cash awards. It suspended him and moved him from his supervisory position, never mind that he had received a personal award from Vice President Gore for government efficiency. The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board last month ordered the INS to reinstate Mr. Jacobs, saying an ongoing investigation "revealed reasonable grounds" that his whistleblowing had led to the decision to punish him.
Whistleblowers aren't all courageous truthtellers. Some go outside official channels prematurely. Others have axes to grind. But it's clear that speaking up the past six years has carried significant risks. Indeed it's enough of an issue that this month the Clinton Administration announced it would seek further protection for federal employees. "Too many employers feel they can retaliate against whistleblowers with impunity," says Assistant Secretary of Labor Charles Jeffress.
We recall how back in the 1970s a Defense whistleblower named Ernest Fitzgerald became virtually a sainted figure in Washington. Times change, we guess. Today, whistleblowers against the actions of the Clinton Presidency become virtual Beltway pariahs, with few defenders. But you never know. Government whistleblowers may become popular and lionized again, say, in three years.
Comments on this posting?
Click here to post a public comment on the Trash Talk Bulletin Board.
Click here to send a private comment to the Junkman.